Applying your own language to your extreme extrapolations from data on lab animals and modern peoples (which the scientists themselves who conducted the studies don't make and would probably consider unscientific) as somehow strong evidence in favor of pre-cooking Stone Age purely raw diets is no more outrageous than your own claims directed at me and others for daring to mention at times scientific evidence on and observations of HG and traditional populations as somehow motivated by or promoting a vague "noble savage theory".
*edit* The spectacular disingenuousness etc. on your part is amazing. The fact that I use modern scientific studies which prove, beyond doubt, that heat-created toxins are a problem for human health is damning against your claims. The fact that there is no scientific study comparing rawpalaeodiets to cooked, palaeodiets is completely irrelevant. That is solely due to retarded health-and-safety regulations which forbid scientific studies to be done on those eating raw meat diets. So far, as a result, there have only been a tiny few studies done on raw dairy consumption, that's about it.
And there's much more anecdotal of people experiencing benefits on HG-type diets, as I've already documented.
The trouble is that such "anecdotal" evidence is very sparse and only covers very minor health-issues, for the most part. RVAF diets have far better anecdotal reports re health-recovery.
Now you're just ranting nonsense. The SAD is what most Americans eat today, so it's typically what other diets are compared to in studies and it's relevant in any dietary analysis for the USA and any nation that eats a similar diet, and it's the most common diet that cooked Paleos switch to, so of course it's relevant to many cooked Paleos and people in the USA and likely Europe too. Surely even you recognize that.
I made a very pertinent point, that junk-food diets are so very bad for human-health that even minor, crappy diets that involve slightly less processing than junk-food diets, such as cooked, palaeolithic diets, are "less worse" than junk-food diets, without necessarily being any good at all.
Again with the Inuit canard. As was already pointed out to you, Cordain's team removed their data in the above research and most cooked Paleo diet advocates don't advocate an Inuit-type diet. So you're wasting your time tilting at windmills.
Pure hypocrisy there. I mean, when you want to promote the idea of Noble-Savagery(despite pretending not to in the past) you can't very well arbitrarily, for no valid reason, eliminate the Inuit Diet from all the other HG diets. That would involve pure hypocrisy.
It's not ironic, because I disagree with that notion, and as you (ironically) pointed out, I refuted it, and I even noted in my very last post that cooked-Paleo-diet advocate Matt Lalonde argued against that sort of thinking. I can tell that you haven't watched his presentation.
It is ironic, since you previously advocated the panda/giant panda theory, yet, hypocritically, falsely accused me of this very notion. As for Matt LaLonde, forgive me, it seems I have not paid sufficient reverence/prayer to this other dietary guru of yours, who you clearly worship, among others.
A blatant lie. The shame is all yours.
No lie, I'm just accusing you, rightfully, of hypocrisy.
I suspect Ron would disagree with you on this. Have you asked him at Paleofood if he supports this thing you call a noble savage theory? Any other examples beyond Ron? You still haven't addressed the fact that Matt Lalonde (as well as Dr. Kurt Harris and other cooked Paleos) have argued against the very things you claim "many" cooked paleo diet gurus promote.
It's quite true that scientists know way more about recent HGs than about pre-cooking HGs. Why do you say "simply because"? Do you consider that fact irrelevant? Multiple people here have mentioned that we can't know with clarity what ancient Stone Agers ate and seem to consider this a relevant fact. In contrast, scientists can directly observe today's HGs and see what they are eating. I thought you had at least a modicum of respect for Cordain. Do you think he would waste time with the HG data if it was irrelevant?
Ron Hoggan went apeshit when I mentioned in passing that the Noble Savage theory was bunk, and that life was "nasty, brutish, and short" for tribes then. Just because I dared to suggest that HG tribes were not perfect, he decided to go all passive-aggresive, to a more extreme level than you usually do, and refused to read or reply to any of my future posts. Grudgingly, after many months, he seems to have changed this rule, only because, likely, he realised that he seemed a petty little child as a result. As for Cordain, his childish remarks re modern HGs have far less worth than the scientific data he has on palaeo HGs. The fact that there is more data on more modern HGs than palaeo HGs does not, remotely, discount the latter data on palaeo HGs, which has more worth, scientifically.
You already pointed out that wild animals have just as much cancer as cooked foodists, did you not? So rawness apparently doesn't help with at least cancers, in your view, correct? Are you claiming that raw Paleo will cure even more diseases than the diseases of civilization, including substantially more than cooked Paleo can? If so, could you please name some of them?
I made a good number of examples in the raw foodism page in the "potential harmful effects of cooked diets" section. And being ethical, unlike some sick pro-cooked-palaeolithic-diet gurus, I don't pretend that raw, palaeolithic diets will automatically protect against all diseases, even cancer.
Good scientists are not in the habit of assuming things "can't" be. Science involves investigating to find out whether things can be or not. With those statements, you're leaving science and entering the land of idealistic speculation that you decry in others.
B*llsh*t again. I have shown again and again, via endless refs, that scientific data shows that many health-problems are improved if the amounts of diet-derived heat-created toxins in the body were reduced. So your arguments are disproven.
Again, try making these claims of the poor to mediocre results from cooked Paleo in those forums instead of here, and we'll see what response you generate. Ranting about it here is hardly convincing. You can point me to the link. I'd be interested to see it.
Again, like I said before, this would be highly stupid since any rebuttals would, of necessity, be damage-control of a dubious nature. I might even get banned. Far better to wait and get genuine, honest testimonials on the very rare occasions they do appear.
Sometimes when I have looked at your cited sources, they don't fully support your claims. Let's not rehash that, though. We can agree to disagree on the extent of the conclusions you've drawn, since I agree that there is decent evidence for harm from cooking, especially certain forms of cooking, I just don't carry it to the extremes that you do.
The B*llsh*t factor again, on your part. The amount of evidence I cite re scientific studies is way too great to honestly debunk. I mean, by now, there are tens of thousands of studies done on the harmful effect of advanced glycation end products, for example, so this is pure dishonesty on your part.
Yes, I give you credit for at least looking up and sharing the studies and at least reading some of the abstracts and perhaps more, and I do agree with you that the cooked Paleos tend to dismiss without good reason the evidence on cooking vs. raw and types of cooking. I just don't think it helps our case when you carry it further into giving the impression that the Paleo aspect of raw Paleo (ie, the choice of foods eaten) contributes very little and that cooked Paleos have experienced very little in the way of benefits when they've switched to it from the SAD, and when you come across like you're speaking for all of our experiences, when yours is quite different from mine, Lex's and others.
The big problem with the above is that most RVAFers' experiences on this and any other RVAF forum are not in line with Lex's, yours' or the very few others' experiences. So your argument is invalid.
I have read in private PMs from other people and in their posts in other forums that you basically did scare them off or they went silent and gave up on trying to discuss with you, because they found it fruitless, and another person at a forum advised others not to waste time bothering to debate you. I suspect there may be still others who haven't spoken up, though I don't know that for sure, of course. Usually when some people complain there are many more who are silent, but we can't know for sure, of course.
I strongly suspect this is a sudden, false invention on your part. The most obvious reason being that, given a multitude of reports on other RVAF diet forums, most rawists are , at least partially, if not wholly, in line with my particular ideology, and most being wholly opposed to the foolish notion that cooked, palaeolithic diets(or any other cooked diets) have any value at all, healthwise.
Because the Paleosphere is divided into raw and cooked camps, the people who think that rawness is the biggest factor are of course going to self-select themselves to this forum. To hear from the people who don't think rawness is uber important, you'd need to survey the cooked Paleo and cooked LC forums.
I've noticed that a number of the people who claim that rawness is the key come from other raw or mostly-raw diets, where they assumed that most of their benefit was from going raw, such as raw vegan and raw Primal. As Denise Minger and others have pointed out, by going raw and/or vegan, they also eliminate many of the nonPaleo foods, like grains. So there are confounding variables they aren't taking into account when they assume that most or all the benefit came from rawness (or eliminating meat, for that matter).
The big trouble with this specious false assumption of yours is that the difference between raw and cooked is way, way bigger than the difference between palaeo- and non-palaeo. With the latter, there is only an issue of an omission of certain foods, whereas, with raw vs cooked, raw foods benefit from the addition of bacteria and enzymes as well. When one further takes into account that raw foods benefit from not having heat-created toxins in them, then cooked-palaeo foods are demonstrated to be very poor, healthwise by comparison. The only problem with raw, non-palaeo foods is that they don't provide "complete nutrients", thus eventually leading to nutrional deficiencies over a long period of time. By contrast, cooked-palaeodiet foods can cause problems from the very start.
What utter dross. And you complain about childishness?
I am merely pointing out that, ever since I caught you out defending the retarded Noble-Savage theory, you tried to back-pedal and pretend that you weren't a fanatic.
You're either lying or acting imbecilic here. I suspect the former, since I don't consider you that dense. I don't consider them my personal gods, nor worship them, any more than you do when you mention or quote Cordain or some other prominent person or any of their work.
[/quote] The big difference between you and me is that I mention gurus on a much rarer basis than you, and when I do, my praise is often intermixed with criticism of such. I have simply come across too many seriously flawed gurus for me to have much faith in them. Yet many dieters insist on "following the faith".
Topic: Macronutrient ratios in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets (Read 20861 times)